D&D 4E Why is this board so down on 4E critics?

[Fifth Element]

Please, don't "fix" the original message, no matter the intent. I consider this to be rude, I'm sorry.

I agree. It can easily be considered rude by the person whose post you "fix". There are ways to make your point without being "clever".

 

[Thaumaturge]

Compare 3E to OD&D. They could easily be called different games. Does this mean 3E is not D&D (since OD&D would then be the only game that could without a doubt be called D&D)?
.

According to diaglo, yes.

Thaumaturge.

 

[mmu1]

Sorry Rel, ain't you.

Edit: The mod I'm thinking of once locked a thread on game-world war & politics, because I posted re something the historian John Keegan once said about the difference between 'warrior' and 'non warrior' nations. Apparently this counted as 'politics'.

I wonder if this is the same mod who warned me and erased my post because I said I had doubts about 4E because I thought the 4E design team just wasn't as talented as the 3E team, or banned a poster for responding (sharply but without breaking any rules) to a different moderator that flamed him in a post that clearly wasn't (or at least definitely shouldn't have been) made in an official capacity. Hmm...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I think it is because the most vocal 4th Ed critics tend to display some pretty poor habits within the way they voice their complaints. This is not to say that the pro 4th edition people do not do the same on occasion, but it seems that the critics are doing so more often. (I admit that this is just my own view based on what I have observed).

There are two things that I tend to associate with the anti-4th posters. The first is an overuse of the "It is like World of Warcraft" arguement without clearly saying why that is a bad thing. The second is in making non constructive and off topic comments in threads making theories about how 4th edition will do things, such as "How do you think X will work given Y information?" getting a response of "It will suck because its like world of warcraft".

There are plenty of concerns about 4th edition that are valid, such as mechanical rules intruding onto elements of story, like the change to how rings work. Or that 4th edition is coming out too soon, especially considering that a 3.5 edition was released. But comments that are questioning WotC's motives should probably not show up in a debate about some new tidbit regarding the Marshal. And those kind of derails do seem to be made more by anti-4th people than pro-4th people.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Dausuul]

I heard enough from people who actually saw the e-mail or knew one or more people who had received the e-mail to give it some credibility with me.

That inclines me to believe that there was an e-mail. However, what the e-mail actually said remains very much in doubt. I have yet to see any direct quotations from the e-mail in question, and experience has taught me that people will take a letter that says "We hope you like our shiny toy" and twist that into "You will be subject to ten years' hard labor if you criticize our shiny toy."

I do think that they are trying to make a game different enough from D&D that it won't really be D&D anymore. It seems that it will essentially be D&D minis with some elements of WOW and Exalted thrown in for good measure. This may be a good game for some people. In fact WotC is banking on the fact that it will appeal to enough younger gamers to offset the older crowd which will pass on 4E. It might be a fun game, but it won't deliver what many D&D fans are looking for in a game with the Dungeons and Dragons logo on it.

Okay, see, this is exactly the sort of thing that triggers dogpiles. In fact, you hit three of the major dogpile flags in that one paragraph:

--Comparison of 4E to World of Warcraft.
--Claim that 4E "won't be D&D anymore."
--Claim that 4E is specifically targeting "younger gamers" at the expense of older ones (implication that gamers who like 4E are less mature).

With bonus points for not providing any specifics in support of your arguments.

All of these have been done to death already, to the point where you can predict that every single new tidbit of information about 4E will elicit these responses. This irritates a lot of forumgoers who are tired of seeing this stuff endlessly re-hashed, particularly when it hijacks threads where there's an interesting discussion going on. Moreover, because they've seen it so many times, they have their counter-arguments honed and ready, so they react to that irritation with a flood of biting replies.

I daresay the anti-4E folks could list off some dogpile triggers of their own.

 

[AZRogue]

I heard enough from people who actually saw the e-mail or knew one or more people who had received the e-mail to give it some credibility with me. What really makes it believable, is that it is right in line with WotC's amateurish, hamhanded, inept, marketing of 4E. I don't think that WotC is conspiring to give us a crappy game. I do think that they are trying to make a game different enough from D&D that it won't really be D&D anymore. It seems that it will essentially be D&D minis with some elements of WOW and Exalted thrown in for good measure. This may be a good game for some people. In fact WotC is banking on the fact that it will appeal to enough younger gamers to offset the older crowd which will pass on 4E. It might be a fun game, but it won't deliver what many D&D fans are looking for in a game with the Dungeons and Dragons logo on it.

The majority of posters probably don't believe your claims or take them with a grain of salt. That doesn't make them against the "anti-4E" crowd. That just means they have some common sense and don't like jumping to conclusions.

I followed the links and read some of the threads over on the Paizo board. It's overtly anti-4E, which is fine, but don't mistake it for being 4-E neutral just because a few people there like the new edition. People on ENWorld, if disciplined at all, which is very rare considering, are only disciplined for their behavior, not their beliefs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do think that they are trying to make a game different enough from D&D that it won't really be D&D anymore.

That's another type of "point" I don't like and forgot to mention.

It's another type of generalisation telling me "You know, if you like this edition, you don't care about D&D and your opinion is worthless to me."
I have no way of knowing if this is _really_ what the poster wants to tell me, but it feels like it. And that's the kind of post that will get pro-4E people on the fence.

But in the end, if you don't want to say this, then I have an alternate interpretation:
"D&D by is very nature is not a good game. People wanting to play D&D are not looking for a good game, they want D&D, even if that means the game sucks".
Well, if I posted it this way (and meant it that way) on a D&D forum, I would basically scream "Flame me! Now! I am a Troll and I feed on anger and hatred!"

Luckily, I don't believe that this is true. D&D is a very "broad" thing. Different people like different things about it. Sometimes it depends on when they started D&D or role-playing, for others it depends on the type of groups they played with.
The things you like about a game easily become the thing defining the game for you. A new edition that doesn't seem to emphasize what you came to like means that the game is not the game you want (at least, so it seems. Actual play experience may vary and that applies to everyone - who knows how much some of the current pro-4E people will begin to hate the game in a few years?")

 

[Shazman]

I voiced my opinion. Feel free to dogpile me if you want. Is this better? It is my personal opinion that 4E will not feel like D&D to me. There are too many changes with too little justification for those changes. Some of the same people that reported on the e-mail also spoke of comments from playtesters they knew (the same ones who received the e-mail who wouldn't post themselves becasue of the NDA) that it played very much like a minis game with no soul or drama. Obviously, you can take that commentary with a grain of salt. However, the pit fiend entry, which I believe reads a whole lot like the info on a minis card (even having ranges in squares instead of feet), tends to make me think that there may be something to this. I would like 4E to feel like D&D to me , and maybe it eventually will. At this point, howver, I am not at all convinced that it will be D&D for me.

 

[Rel]

I wonder if this is the same mod who warned me and erased my post because I said I had doubts about 4E because I thought the 4E design team just wasn't as talented as the 3E team, or banned a poster for responding (sharply but without breaking any rules) to a different moderator that flamed him in a post that clearly wasn't (or at least definitely shouldn't have been) made in an official capacity. Hmm...

Let me just say that I don't want to see any more of this kind of stuff in this thread. If you've got a problem with specific acts of moderation then I reiterate that we welcome your e-mails. But in-thread criticism of how stuff was handled is against the rules and will only serve to distract from the topic at hand.

 

[Guild Goodknife]

Edit: Sorry, missed Rels post